Citation network
Saffle Vs. Parks
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 05, 1990
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 484 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court Saffle v. ParksSearch
-
U.S. 484 (1990) Saffle v. ParksSearch
-
in a case on collateral review unless it comes within one of two narrow -- and here inapplicable -- exceptions. Teague v. LaneSearch
-
his conviction became final would not have concluded that it was compelled by existing precedent to adopt it. Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 , and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
moral response, rather than an emotional one based on the whims or caprice of jurors. Similarly, California v. PageSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
phase of his trial, telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment. In Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
that Parks is not entitled to federal habeas relief. The principle he urges is a new rule within the meaning of Teague v. LaneSearch
-
Parks' conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, Parks v. StateSearch
-
The District Court denied relief, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Parks v. BrownSearch
-
reversed, holding that the antisympathy instruction was unconstitutional for the reasons advanced by Parks. Parks v. BrownSearch
-
review, we must first determine whether the relief sought would create a new rule under our holdings in Teague v. LaneSearch
-
whether we announce a new rule when a decision extends the reasoning of our prior cases. As we recognized in Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
Teague, supra, at 489 U. S. 306 (quoting Desist v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 394 U. S. 244 , 394 U. S. 262 -263 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting)). See also Solem v. StumesSearch
-
he seeks does not involve the creation of a new rule. Relying upon our decisions in Page 494 U. S. 489 Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978), and Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 (1982), both decided before his conviction became final in 1983, and our decision in California v. BrownSearch
-
decision must be made. Indeed, that is how we have interpreted these decisions in later cases. See Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Skipper v. SouthSearch
-
unreasonable in concluding that the instructions do not violate the rule of Lockett and Eddings. See Byrne v. ButlerSearch
-
People v. EmersonSearch
-
State v. RamseurSearch
-
State v. SteffenSearch
-
State v. OwensSearch
-
State v. PorterfieldSearch
-
us to apply the reasoning of Lockett and Eddings so much as it required us to apply our decision in Jurek v. TexasSearch
-
guiding their consideration. It is no doubt constitutionally permissible, if not constitutionally required, see Gregg v. GeorgiaSearch
-
California v. BrownSearch
-
Woodson v. NorthSearch
-
id. at 479 U. S. 541 -543. Given the above discussion, it is obvious that our decision in California v. BrownSearch
-
here. Although the precise contours of this exception may be difficult to discern, we have usually cited Gideon v. WainwrightSearch
-
mitigating evidence. The Tenth Circuit, sitting en banc, agreed and vacated respondent's death sentence. Parks v. BrownSearch
-
The Court displays undue eagerness to apply the new standard for retroactivity announced in Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
countenance such carelessness when a life is at stake. I dissent. Page 494 U. S. 497 I In Teague v. LaneSearch
-
id. at 489 U. S. 320 (STEVENS, J., joined by BLACKMUN, J., concurring). Today, in Butler v. McKellarSearch
-
The majority's conclusion, however, is based on a Page 494 U. S. 498 fundamental misreading of Lockett v. OhioSearch
-
U. S. 586 (1978), Eddings v. OklahomaSearch
-
U. S. 104 (1982), and Penry v. LynaughSearch
-
into the sufficiency of the jury instructions, not the recognition of a new principle of law. See, e.g., Hitchcock v. DuggerSearch
-
Moreover, the majority's limited reading of Lockett and Eddings was rejected last Term in Penry v. LynaughSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial